Experientia

, Volume 42, Issue 11–12, pp 1287–1289 | Cite as

Adaptive optimal sound for vocal communication in tunnels of a subterranean mammal (Spalax ehrenbergi)

  • G. Heth
  • E. Frankenberg
  • E. Nevo
Short Communications

Summary

The adaptive value of sound signal characteristics for transmission in the underground tunnel ecotope was tested using tunnels of the solitary territorial subterranean mole rats. We analyzed the propagation of synthetic calls with various frequencies through natural tunnels along different distances. Here we present evidence that sound propagation proved efficient only across short distances (a few meters). The least attenuation of sounds occurred at low frequencies. The 440 Hz sound was transmitted better than the lower (220 Hz) or higher (880, 1760, 3520 Hz) tested frequencies. These characteristics matched perfectly with the mole rat features of vocalization and hearing, thus reflecting the operation of natural selection for adaptive vocal communication in the underground tunnel ecotope.

Key words

Sound transmission underground vocal communication subterranean mole rats 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 2.
    Nevo, E., A. Rev. Ecol. Syst.10 (1979) 269.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Haim, A., Heth, G., Pratt, H., and Nevo, E., J. expl Biol.107 (1983) 59.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Cei, G., Mon. zool. it.55 (1946) 69.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Dubost, G., Rev. Ecol. Biol. Sol. 5 (1968) 99.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Quilliam, T. A., J. Zool.149 (1966) 76.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Capranica, R. R., Moffat, J., and Nevo, E., Acoust. Soc. Am., Ann. Meet. Los Angeles, 1973.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Nevo, E., in Proc. Inter. Meet on ‘Variability and Behavioral Evolution’ Rome, Sept. 1983 Acc. Naz. Lincei259 (1986) 39.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Nevo, E., Science163 (1969) 484.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Heth, G., and Nevo, E., Evolution35 (1981) 254.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Nevo, E., Heth, G., Frankenberg, E., and Beiles, A., manuscript submitted.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Eisenberg, J. F., in: The Biology of Hystricomorph Rodents Eds. I. W. Rowlands and B. J. Wein, Symp. Zool. Soc. London,34 (1974) pp. 211–247.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Aitkin, L. M., Horseman, B. G., and Bush, B. M. H., Brain Behav. Evol.21 (1982) 49.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Coles, R. B., Gower, D. M., Boyd, P. J., and Lewis, D. B., J. expl Biol.101 (1982) 337.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Heth, G., Frankenberg, E., and Nevo, E., J. Mamm., in press (1986).Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Michelsen, A., in: Bioacoustics, a Comparative Approach, p. 3. Ed. B. Lewis, Academic Press, London 1983.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Littlejohn, M. J., in: The Reproductive Biology of Amphibians. Eds D. H. Taylor and F. T. Guttman. Plenum Press, New York 1977.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    Nevo, E., Mammalia25 (1961) 127.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Nevo, E., Heth, G., and Beiles, A., J. Genet., in press (1986).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Heth
    • 1
  • E. Frankenberg
    • 2
  • E. Nevo
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of EvolutionUniversity of HaifaHaifa(Israel)
  2. 2.Nature Reserves AuthorityJerusalem(Israel)

Personalised recommendations